People are waking up to the idea of businesses that live in the internet.
Here is a post by tech crunch on the dao: http://tcrn.ch/1U5gLlY

My self, i believe that the real killer app of the blockchain tech is autonomous organizations pioneered by peershares.
I wrote a post on that:
"
Building companies that live on the Internet is the killer app of the blockchain technology."http://nuventures.org/news/archives/23

It seems that the DAO is making the same mistake as Ethereum: a platform that tries to do everything at the same time.
I feel it would be very difficult to scale and maintain.
To me it makes much more sense to create a template that people can use to generate their own independent blockchain.
Therefore to me the template offered by nubits is the only viable one for all things related to daos.
What do u think?
I would be interested in getting @JordanLee s view on the dao compares to nu.

In early 2000, the internet bubble burst, after a long time, the real internet era has come.

IMO, there should be a “blcokchain bubble”, and Etheruem/DAO is just like the expanding bubble, OK, let them burst in 2017-2018. Ethereum and DAO are selling concepts and have ZERO feasibility because they are too far ahead of real world and stupidly plan to eat everything. I believe the design is from scammers with 160 IQ rather than from software architects with 160 IQ.

I might be wrong, but the way I see that project after reading stuff about it is like this:

It’s like launching an Hedge Fund in Wall Street.

Then you ask random people in the streets to raise funds.

So you give equal voting power to everyone who purchased a share in your HF.

By the time it starts investing the funds, everyone is asked to propose, debate and vote. The problem is: investment in 3rd parties is the weak link. It’s out of the “smart contract” DAO decentralized enviroment. Invested funds might just “be gone” in a blink of an eye

I can’t see how this is gonna be profitable in the long run. This “system” relies so much in so many variables…

p.s. However that’s gonna be an interesting experiment to follow and watch from distance…

We won’t go on about how the world has had 100 years (or more) of
feedback with respect to what happens when you remove the professional
executive/management function from corporate identity, or transfer all
day-to-day decision making to amateur committees. Any cursory review of
modern history (or a quick read of Animal Farm)
will flag up the problems: indecision paralysis; wasted time and
resources on voting and bureaucracy; entirely non-diplomatic means of
grabbing power just to get things done; uninformed decision making;
exploitation of the ignorant; tragedies of the commons scenarios and
last but not least: a lack of skin-in-the-game accountability for poor
decision making leading to post-facto due diligence processes with dire
consequences for capital, human resources and environments.

here’s a recap of the key points:

Investing wisely and actively requires time, professionalism and expertise, none of which amateur investors busy with their own jobs necessarily have — hence why they outsource informed decision making to investment managers. This phenomenon is called division of labour.

If everyone was a professional investor, there would be no-one left to actually transform the capital into useful and productive stock.

Investors have a tendency to be risk-averse and err towards free lunch windfalls or pure capital gains where they can, which isn’t necessarily good for the long-term interests of any project.

Investors often have a difference opinion about the value of projects.Liquidity matters.

If a technology needs conscious and informed involvement by participants it’s not really automating anything.

Having to bow to continuous shareholder pressures can prevent actual projects from ever being implemented, especially if everyone disagrees.

Outsourcing administration to unconscious agents, who are charged with implementing fixed rulebooks that can only be amended if shareholder consensus is achieved is one thing. Having them replace executive command structures that sit within moderated democratic structures for good reason, is an entirely different thing — especially if you want entrepreneurial vision ever to be implemented…

What’s good for the company long-term isn’t always what’s good for the shareholders short-term.

Without regulatory constraints on general stock solicitation, and with no fixed costs attached to new entity proposals and no due diligence minimum (such as a formal registration process which links entities to real people, with real addresses) what’s really stopping anyone from scamming or spamming the network with waste of time proposals?